Commenter Profile

I do not know how to define a situation in which from time to time each side lobs rockets at the other except to call it low intensity war. Are Israel's weapons more effective than the Palestinian ones? Sure. But how is this applicable to the point? No rocket is futile. It harms the communities that are shot at even when no one gets hurt.

I don't see Israel's war on Gaza as a war of aggression. I just don't see a way to stop rockets coming from Gaza without waging this war. I don't believe that even if Israel would have unilaterally withdrawn to the 67 lines the rockets would have stopped. It would be merely interpreted as a sign of weakness by Hamas and they would continue firing rockets. Maybe if you could propose a realistic way to get Hamas to stop shooting rockets, I would change my mind.

"There is nothing extreme in my position. I call for full human rights for all people. You want them for yourself and your fellow Jews and wish to deny them to others. It is you who is the extremist."

My honest assessment is that the right of return will lead to a civil war and the complete trashing of Israel. It will severely impact the quality of life of Israelis. Therefore, when you insist on it, I find your position extreme.

It is a fact that Hamas can easily end Gaza'a isolation by accepting the conditions of the Quartet. These are very reasonable conditions in my opinion. You think Hamas should not accept them. Therefore, I find your position extreme. The Palestinians would not be accepting anything the PLO has not already accepted and the situation in Gaza would improve significantly.

Perhaps you can give an example of some myth or lie I accept, and we can discuss it. I accept all of Benny Morris' history so I have no illusions regarding Israel's founding. So I am just curious, where am I deceiving myself?

I think in the end you will see that what we disagree about is the probability of different scenarios in the future and the interpretation of events especially regarding the intent of the people involved. And these are things reasonable people can disagree about.

Native Americans are less than 4% of Canada's citizens. The Palestinian refugees as defined by the UN roughly equal ALL (100%) of Israel's Jewish population. The problems are completely different.

Furthermore, 90% of the land in Canada is owned by the Canadian federal and provincial governments meaning that at least 90% of the land of the Native Canadians was taken from them:link to en.wikipedia.org

What is the point of your argument? That because you think American history books are biased I should care more about non-Jews than Jews? What American kids study is not relevant to the question what I should care about more, the Russian dead in WW2 or the Jewish dead.

Yes, let's consider this.
The problems with your argument Woody are their extremism. Since you are wishing for miracles anyway, why not just wish that we have a change of heart instead of dying painlessly? Or that we are moved miraculously to some wasteland and are confined there? Taking care of your own, does not mean wishing the worst on the other.

"I think we should stick the Jews in a demilitarized state and let them exist at the mercy of their opponents. That would be fair, right?"

We need something workable. If a peace treaty quickly deteriorates to war, what is the use of have a peace treaty? Just as in the case of Lebanon, it would be easy for Iran or other entities to fund radical groups that would smuggle weapons into Palestine and target Israel.

"Then you must agree that an assault on Israel which is as deadly and murderous would be likewise “justified” because the Israeli occupation and the blockade of Gaza are strangling the Palestinians economically more than the Palestinians could ever hope to achieve. So they should be justified in slaughtering more of you people, right?"

What do you mean? Israel and Gaza are at war, albeit a low intensity one. I guess either side think they are justified. Clearly the Palestinians aren't justified in using violence against Israel because violence has been proven to be a losing strategy for them.

"Have you seen his “better” argument where he justifies Israel by pointing to the treatment of the Native Americans in the US, where he says that if we want to be consistent all whites should leave the country?"

I use this argument to justify one thing only, why I am against the right of return. Just as no one expects the US to return the plain states to the Sioux, Crow, Comanche etc., it is unreasonable to expect Israel to return the land Tel-Aviv University is build upon. Yes, in 1924 after centuries of prosecution, the US allowed Native Americans to live anywhere and vote. Did it move any non-native Americans off their land? No. Did it allow Native Americans to sue for their lands in court? No. Also, by 1924 Native Americans were a small minority in the US. They were not the same number as other Americans as in the case of the Palestinians and Israelis. So really, you are not comparing apples to apples. If the number of Palestinians was 10,000 instead of 7 million, there would be no issue, and that is what happened (in proportion) in the US.

Are you claiming that an interventionist war can never be just? What are you trying to say?

Furthermore, if nations go to war only to purse their interests, how can you deny that the Jews need to be able to protect themselves against a genocide? What if it is the likely case and it is not in any country's interest to help us or it takes forever to get them to act? You are articulating a strong argument for why a Jewish state is required.

What self interest does Jerome Slater have in Libya?
Are you arguing by the way that no war intervention ever is justified?
If you are against all arguments that try to decided if a war is just or not, what are you for exactly? Only going to war if one is attacked?

Jerome,
"Eee: Ok, so let’s issue a challenge to eee–he likes challenges, so I’m sure he will respond. What, exactly, is your position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, and on the occupation, Cast Lead, Netanyahu, and what would be a fair settlement of the conflict, in particular?"

I am on record supporting any solution based on the Clinton Parameters. For example, I like the Geneva Initiative.
As for Cast Lead I think it was justified. The Kassams were strangling the south of Israel economically. Imagine that in NY city one Kassam would fall once a day somewhere in Manhattan, occasionally injuring someone and rarely killing someone. What would happen to tourism to NY city? What would happen to commerce? Would firms leave the city? Would people want to work for companies with offices in NY? People do not understand the effects of terror. Physically the Kassams did relatively little, but their psychological effect was crippling the economy of Sderot and the whole region.

"Which not to pick on the Just War morality theory again..does point up the fact that some morality is considered to expensive to pursue."

Again, the Just War Theory states that to be just a war must a priori be deemed winnable. Otherwise it is not only immoral to fight the war but also quite stupid. You would be wasting people's lives for nothing.

Your logic is the following I guess: If you cannot or will not intervene when China perpetuates a genocide that means you should never intervene when a genocide is happening. I find it quite faulty.

"60 million people died in WW2, eee, 20 million of them Russians. Do you think their lives were of any less value than the Jews who perished? Why do you think we never hear about them?"

I never understood this point of yours. Do you not go to your relative's graves because you believe you should go to all people's graves? Why is it strange to mourn people close to you and not strangers? That is just normal human behavior. I feel closer to the Jews that perished. That doesn't make the Jews more or less important than the Russians. On what day exactly do you (Blankfort) commemorate the Vietnamese that died in the Vietnam war? Are they less important than the American dead? Are you trying to build a memorial for them in the US?

The informative thought experiment you should do is the following. It is 1935 and the Nazis are firmly in power. It is clear Germany is building its military power. Is a preemptive war just and smart? My answer is yes and yes. What is yours? Let's wait till the Germans take Poland?

"Do you believe the US should have ‘militarily intervened’ to stop Israel in these cases of clear collective punishment and unproportional warfare?"

Since even your criteria include asking whether every other option was tried before war was initiated, then clearly this was not the case in Gaza. Did the US threaten sanctions on Israel as an attempt to stop it? No. Therefore, a US intervention in Gaza would not have been just. So you should rephrase your question to Jerry perhaps and ask if the US should have threatened sanctions on Israel. I am sure he would answer yes.

Furthermore, since you believe Israel is a nuclear power, initiating a war would be too dangerous since both countries could turn out losers. Therefore war on Israel is not just.

“The very idea of a just wars is luxury that only states that enjoy military superiority can even consider. Even if it was true you are not assuming the premise of American exceptionalism, you are ignoring that they cannot be just if only possible for states with military superiority.”

Total BS. One of the criteria of a just war is that you have a good chance of winning it. Otherwise, the war is not just. So naturally, only stronger countries can wage just wars. And that is also why a war against Russia or China would not be just. It can't be won. That is why developing a strong military is a very moral thing to do if you can do it. It allows you to help in cases of genocide for example. You also need to have the will to do it.

It is so easy to ignore this moral dimension by purposely not building a force that can be sent overseas. But basically by not having such capabilities, one is deciding to do nothing if a genocide happens (except talk of course). What does "Never Again (for everybody)" mean if no one is prepared to enforce this?

"So the job of the US is to save foreign Jews, even at the expense of the lives of its own citizens?"

So you want to have it both ways I see. Who's job is it then if you also deny the Jews a country? You either accept the notion that the leading countries of the world need to protect minorities from genocide or you accept the notion that minorities need to have a way to protect themselves by having countries and armies. It is time you got your story straight.

Only in your dreams Israel is a supremacist state. When you are willing to actually implement justice and equality in the world let me know. You had plenty of chances since the Holocaust but still horrific episodes in Cambodia and Rwanda and other places occurred. So tell me, why should I trust someone like you who only talks? In this world, if you don't take care of yourself, you are in big trouble. At least this lesson most Jews have learned. And your support of Ron Paul only compounds this. If the US would have joined WWII earlier, many Jews would have been saved. If the US would have developed nuclear weapons earlier, many Jews would have been saved. But with idiots like Ron Paul, the opposite would have happened, and that is what you want for the future. How can you be trusted at all?

How can anyone prove that you are wrong? You don't ever pronounce an opinion. I haven't read ONE constructive from you. All you are good at are ad hominem attacks. You fart in the wind and think you are singing.

"I’ll pose a more “simple-minded” test for just war. Are you willing to send your precious sons or daughters to fight the “just war”? If you are not, it’s not just."

So apparently most of you here do not think that the Palestinian fight against Israel is just because you are not willing to send your kids to fight it. Or maybe I am wrong, and you will send your kids to fight besides the Palestinians in the next intifada?

The fact is that a war can be just even if people are selfish and do not want to send their kids to fight it. A war to stop the genocide in Rwanda for example would have been worthwhile but unpopular in the US. It is ok to say: The war is just but I don't care enough about that cause to sacrifice my life or my kids' life.

The point is that there are some ideas and goals worth dying for. Would you have been willing to die to stop the genocide in Rwanda? Would you be willing to die to stop fascism in the US? In Europe? I hope so, otherwise what you write on this blog is pure hypocrisy.

I am willing to die in order to maintain a Jewish state in Israel. I believe it is an idea worth sacrificing your life for. Naturally, you would disagree, and that is why wars happen also, because humans are willing to give their lives for ideas.

The stench of desperation is overwhelming Mondoweiss. Initially I was very surprised to so many people would support a right wing radical like Ron Paul, but the more comments I read, the clearer it became that most of you are just desperate and clutching at straws. That is why you are willing to even think that Ron Paul is an answer to anything.

And desperate you should be if you can't even dialog with and understand the position of Jerome Slater. What are you chances of convincing the vast majority of people? About zero.

The Just War Theory is imperfect for many reasons, but it is a good start for discussion. Its problems lie in in a completely different area than those described here and are related to the fact that humans view wars over ideas as justified. If you try to analyze the American War of Independence using the just war theory, you would see that it is not justified from either side. The average American was not oppressed by the British and in fact Americans were richer on average than British citizens. But still Americans thought it worthwhile to go to war over ideas.

Also, it is hard to see how the just war theory justifies the American Civil War. Without the war also slavery would have been abolished. But most Americans believe that 600,000 military dead and countless civilians was a worthwhile price to pay to end slavery (that the war was not about slavery initially is another matter).

There are also many people (including me) that believe that dying for your country is a great honor. The Greeks and Romans believed this also. Not that you should commit suicide for your country, but that dying while risking your life for your country is a good death and one of the most unselfish things you can do. Everyone dies anyway. So this whole view of death being always bad is incorrect also.

No need to whitewash anything. Israel has said over and over again that it views the area of Jerusalem as part of Israel in any border settlement. Just as the Palestinians do not want to negotiate while Israel eats the pizza, Israel will not wait for the pizza to get cold while the Palestinians decided when they are willing to negotiate. The parts of the pizza that Israel believes will belong to it, will be exploited.

Come off it Phil. You and Haber are just extremists. For example, you would describe American history till the American Civil War as a long corridor of darkness because of slavery and how Native Americans were treated and from the war to the mid sixties as a long corridor of darkness because of Jim Crow. From the mid sixties till now you would describe American history as a long corridor of darkness because of American imperialism and the millions of people the US killed. You look at things through a distorted lens, you will get a distorted picture. This is how you view Zionism.

But in fact, American history is a lot of good combined with some bad, just like the history of Zionism and Israel.

"Zionist hubris and racism keeps the Israelis from realizing that they are not chosen because they’re smart when in reality they are chosen because they’re cheap. This is the same impulse that drives things to India and China."

You are so wrong it is hilarious. Anobit was bought because of its patents, know how and technology, not because of its cheap labor like in India and China. And the owners and employees of Anobit have become quite wealthy through the stock and stock options they owned, unlike their Chinese counterparts that continue to receive low pay.

Sure, first we are going to enact the Palestinian Removal Act
( link to en.wikipedia.org )
which for the Palestinians safety means they will all be moved to Jordan Valley. Then we will grant them land and reneg on the deals and make them poor and miserable. And then when most of them leave or die of disease, we will grant the few that are left citizenship. And then we will preach to others how great we are.

No, it is not what Israel is going to do, but it is what Canada and the US did, and now you are using what you did as a great example: "Look how great we are, we gave Native Americans citizenship in 1924". Yes, after killing them over hundreds of years while stealing their lands and continually breaking treaties and agreements with them. Next you will tell me how great you are allowing them to build casinos even though Native Americans still are second class citizens in the US.

Israel is going to negotiate a two state solution with the Palestinians as soon as they become reasonable and accept a plan based on the Clinton Parameters. Unfortunately, the Palestinians insist on the right of return and therefore there is no deal to be had.

The Palestinians in the West Bank will eventually have a state of their own. You granted citizenship to the Native Americans in 1924 which was 148 after the US was founded and 432 years after Columbus landed in the New World. Don't worry, we will sort things out much quicker than you did.

And I am sure that many of the people on the tundra would be happy with a house in Ramallah. Maybe they like eating in the organic restaurant that Phil ate at? And as for Hebron, most people there have a decent life. You should visit and see for yourself.

The point is very simple. What Palestinians want is the equivalent of Native Americans asking back the plain states. That is what the right of return means. And that they will never get, just as the Native Americans will not get their land back. Or are you in favor of giving it back to them?

You shouldn't be talking about things you know nothing about. Avi claimed Anobit was purchased because:
it "was manufacturing computer memory at costs lower than Samsung and other manufacturers from whom Apple purchases its memory "

Anobit does not manufacture computer memory at all. It is a fabless company, in fact it doesn't manufacture anything. It designs chips that other manufacture.

I am in the technology business and have seen quite a few acquisitions and their consequences in Israel. Most turn out good, some do not. We shall see.

Apple had the option of licensing the technology from other American companies but it decided to go the much more expensive route and buy an Israeli company. They know something about the technology that you don't. And if the technology is going to be relevant for only a couple of years, then their decision to buy it instead of license it is really stupid. But of course, Apple is smarter than all the naysayers on this board who just can't bring themselves to admit the obvious truth, that Israel is a tech powerhouse.

There is a reason Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, Google, Intel and now also Apple have R&D centers here and often purchase Israeli companies, and it is not the Israel lobby.

Palestinians can decide if they want to shot rockets from Gaza. They decided in the past to pursue the second intifada like they did. They decided to reject the UN partition plan and try their luck at war. They decided not to ask for a state in the West Bank and Gaza between 48 and 67. Palestinians have made many bad decisions. And they are paying the price for them.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I know the company that was bought well. It does not have manufacturing plants. What it has is a ground breaking technology based on DSP to make reading and writing from flash memory much better.

Yeah, right. The Palestinians are blameless victims. They are responsible for their situation just as Israel is responsible for its situation. The Palestinians chose their goals and methods and are paying the price of their shortsightedness, extremism, internal strife and other assorted failures.

So let me get this straight, since the US is also a high tech country you plan soon to give back all the plain states to the Sioux, Crow, Comanche etc and Florida back to the Seminoles. When is New Jersey going to be given back to the Lenape?link to en.wikipedia.org

It is a fact that Israel developed technology that Apple did not have and therefore they acquired it. Yes, Israel is a high tech economy. I know this does not fit with your distorted picture of the world, but the facts are the facts.

"Israel’s economy will tank shortly thereafter."
Israel is a high tech power house and huge amounts of gas were just discovered off shore, but our economy will tank. Yeah, right.

"What Palestinians need is for Israel to fvck off and stop stealing their resources and choking their economy."
Ask Palestinians and they will readily admit that they need access to Israeli markets and the ability to work in Israel if they are to be economically independent.

You are just completely wrong. The percentage of GDP that Israel gets from the West Bank is negligible relative to the total GDP. Israel does not need the Palestinians at all.

Contrast this with South Africa where industry in general and mining in particular was based on black labor and a strike would bring the economy to a standstill. That is just not the case in Israel. Many, many Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank would love to get back the jobs they lost in Israel. But they have only themselves to blame for their support of the intifadas.

You miss the most salient thing de Klerk is saying:
"And we failed because we became economically totally integrated. We became an economic omelet and you can never again divide an omelet into the white and the yellow of the egg. "

This is not the case in Israel/Palestine. The Palestinians need the Israelis economically but the Israelis have zero need of the Palestinians. The whites were 12% of South Africa and needed the blacks as workers in the mines and in industry. The Jews in Israel are 70% and we do not need the Palestinians to support our high tech economy.

As for his other two reasons, they are not applicable either. Israel is no demanding too much land and most Palestinians support a two state solution.

Cosmetics in general are such a small part of what Israel manufactures that it is very strange that you see those as defining Israel. I also have not purchased Ahava products in years as my wife does not like them.

The Palestinians cannot do mass non-violent protests. It is a myth that they can. You think Israel will do anything if thousands of Palestinians will march in Ramallah? And if they march on Jerusalem, they will be met by tens of thousands of Jews also marching "non violently". And then hundreds of thousands of Jews will march on Palestinian towns, villages and cities. You see where this is going, and the Palestinians know it. When both sides are of equal numbers, the mass protests just don't work.

It is quite simple. If the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Europeans etc. really thought that what Israel is doing is egregious, they would have put sanctions on Israel years ago. But the fact is that all these countries know that the UN resolutions are nothing bot hot air. The Arab countries can muster a majority in the General Assembly and pass whatever resolution they want, just as was the case when the the UN "decided" that Zionism is racism.

You realize I hope that like in the case of Syria, you do not need a UN resolution to sanction Israel. The US is not the issue. The Russians, Chinese, Indians, Europeans etc. can sanction Israel without a UN resolution, like is the case in Syria. So, why are they not doing it if Israel is violating so many UNSC resolutions as you claim? If Israel is so wrong, where are the sanctions? Go complain to the Russians and Chinese. Why are you complaining about the US?

Having a discussion with someone who won't acknowledge basic facts is impossible. Most Haredim are perfectly nice people just like most settlers. Just like in every group there are extremists. You seem to focus on them and generalize which of course leads you to very wrong conclusions. I gave you ample statistics showing that 1) Israel's scientific output is growing and it is ranked 1 in the middle east and 15 in the world in this regard 2) Israel's gdp per capita is by far larger than any of its neighbors and the gap is growing. You have chosen to completely ignore those facts.

You really should face up to the truth which is simple. The Israeli education system has room to improve but it is very good relative to most countries in the world. You only want to focus on statistics that "prove" your distorted point of view and completely ignore all other statistics that I provide.

About our "dim" future, we have been hearing that for years but EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE happens. So when will you learn to stop making fools of yourselves?link to google.com

Now who is coming up with excuses? What is the problem, why can't you come up with ONE human development measure in which Israel lags its neighbors? In every country there are communities that are behind, so what? Only in your distorted world does this make Israel an apartheid country.

Since African Americans are so over represented in American jails, does this make the US an apartheid country? African Americans get 100 points less on average on the SATs than whites in the US, does this make the US an apartheid country? Blacks in the US are much more likely to be unemployed than whites in the US, does this make the US an apartheid country? Yes or no?

A reply to what? Did you notice that what the article does is compare the 16 richest countries in the world? How is that indication of anything? It is a sensationalist article that shows nothing. And these tests are like any other, countries that teach to the test do better. Israel does not put emphasis on these tests. Sure, the education system in Israel has room for improvement, but its results are spectacular.

Yes, getting stronger. GDP is growing nicely. The conflict between secular and religious Jews has always been an issue. The protests this summer where a great example of Israeli democracy at work. Was anybody injured or killed? No one. Was there police brutality? No. As for the peace treaty with Egypt, it is really more important for Egypt at this stage than for Israel.

Israel is doing very well while Syria is on the verge of civil war and Iran's economy is crumbling as we speak. The Islamists are the clear majority in Egypt and unfortunately they will lead that country to oblivion. It is clear that strategically Israel is becoming even stronger as the countries around it are growing much weaker because of economic hardships and internal strife.
So just start the war you are mongering and let's see who is left standing after it.

Santorum and Paul have proved in Iowa that your excuses on why you don' t have a candidate are BS. Santorum had little money and by hard work gained support. Paul also has gained support for his views through persistence and hard work. When will you admit that very few Americans support your views?

"Do you , eee, think the assimilation of Bretons into French society and in turn French into European society is a good thing? What about Venetians into Italian society and again into European society?"

I think you should ask the Bretons and Venetians and the French. Regarding the French they are quite keen on maintaining the French language and not introducing English words into it. How does that fit with your theory? The number of Europeans is going down and the number of Asians who are nationalistic is going up. So the trend in the world is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

As for the question at hand, I think that the fact that Jews exist is good and therefore Jews assimilating is bad. Do you think the assimilation of Jews is a good thing?

Actions speak much louder than words. When Einstein died he left all his papers and the rights to his writing and image to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, one of the leading Zionist institutions (that Einstein helped found by the way). Every time someone uses a picture of Einstein in a commercial, the Hebrew U gets royalties.

Anyone that wants to claim that Einstein was not a Zionist has to explain why he gave this huge gift to the Hebrew U. I haven't heard a good explanation yet.

"The Haredis may become a larger segment of the Jewish population in the United States, since they are producing more babies than those in the Conservative and Reform movements, but they are not able to reproduce enough to make up for all the Jewish people who marry outside the faith and do not raise their children as full fledged Jews."

Exactly, Jewish population in the US is growing smaller and more religious. This means that a large majority of Jews worldwide will be living in Israel in a generation. That means Israel will become even more important for Jews. It is true that monetary support for Israel is not going to grow or even become less, but that is not an issue as Israel is constantly becoming richer.

The Jews that don't care about Israel will assimilate while those that want to retain their Judaism will forge even stronger ties with Israel since it will be the undisputed center of Jewish life.

Take any measure of human development you want to compare Israel to its neighbors, Israel will come out on top. Education, health, technology, human rights, you pick. And as for Israel's Arabs, they are much richer and much better educated on average than the Arabs in neighboring countries. So who is whistling in the dark? Israel is a huge success.

Based in what do you make this assertion? There have always been many Jewish critics of Israel. The number has not changed. There is just no data showing that Jews are becoming more anti-Israel. The opposite is true. As the number of Jews in Israel grows both in absolute terms and relative to the diaspora, it is clear that Israel is becoming a more important component of Judaism.

"That unity is today being dissolved. The haredi-secular conflict in Israel that is getting so much attention here is one means of that dissolution."

Keep on dreaming. The unity is only getting stronger as slowly but surely the Jewish population in Israel becomes the major Jewish population in the world and the percentage of orthodox Jews grows in the US as the less religious Jews assimilate.

As usual, you ignore the facts on the ground. Can you point out ONE major Jewish institution that advocates cutting ties with Israel? In fact, these major institutions, like Hillel, have confirmed the strong ties of American Jews to Israel by refusing to accept fringe anti-Zionists groups like JVP.

You guys are completely off the mark. I am the same person and the only one who has ever commented under the "eee" moniker. But you are right about one thing, I am older. The tone of my comments changed when thankfully the comments here began to be moderated so I don't have to spend most of my time dealing with ad-hominem attacks.

And of course I am not paid by anybody or affiliated in anyway with any institution whose goals are Israeli PR. In other words North, you are willing to make the most ridiculous accusations, anything except address the question you have been evading all along:
How does the Joker “game changer” measure up against the Cornell and Technion joint venture?

And let me add a bonus question: How about the fact that Apple just purchased an Israeli company and is opening in Israel its first ever R&D center outside the US? How does that fit into your BDS calculations?

"But, again, I don’t expect the same results. I expect a similar outcome. I fully expect that the results will be different so as to reflect the different situations. The only similarity I expect would be freedom and equality for all."

Since outcome and result are synonyms, you are really outdoing yourself here. It is ok, I know you have no answer in this case and you are pursuing BDS because you cannot think of any other option you can accept. BDS will not work in the Israel-Palestinian context because the power relations are different. Just as BDS will not work to make China change its actions in Tibet. But go ahead, try it for 10 years and let's see what happens. Just like using violence, it will back fire on the Palestinians.

Nobody is asking Palestinians to capitulate. But of course any solution will reflect the relative strengths of the parties. This is how diplomacy works. Because of thinking like yours the Palestinians rejected the UN partition and also did not create a state in the West Bank and Gaza between 48 and 67 when the Arabs completely controlled this territory. So, has this worked for them? They could have gotten ALL the territory they want now already then. So how smart was that? And the longer they are not realistic the longer they will suffer.

If you use the same strategy in two completely different situations as you admit is the case, it is irrational to expect the same results. Your hope that BDS will work will just postpone the real solution that can only be achieved by negotiations.

"just like you seem to think that your European colony will."

Israel is not a European colony. And of course, nothing lasts forever. But it is clear that Israel will be around for hundreds of years. How long do you give the US by the way? Australia? Canada?

"But the issue regarding BDS wasn’t the economics of the whites and blacks, but of the South Africans and the rest of the world."

You are totally wrong. White domination was over the moment black unions were legally allowed to exist and given power. And they were allowed to exist because otherwise South Africa's economy would have been brought to a standstill.

"Just what the previous set of crusader kingdoms thought. Why should your’s be different simply because it’s the latest?"

What crusader kingdoms are you comparing Israel to? Those from the 13th century? That you think the analogy is applicable at all is laughable.

How is my approach contradictory at all? First of all, I don't spend hours on this site everyday. I comment occasionally when I have time. Second, you surely endow me with special powers even if your claim is true. Does the fact that one Israeli comments on this site often make BDS effective? It shows nothing except that I find commenting on sites in which my view is a minority one much more interesting than commenting on sites where people tend to agree with me.
Thirdly, I do find it very interesting to argue with people who do not believe in evolution and do believe in conspiracy thinking. It offers a window to understanding human thought processes.

And now to the question at hand that you are evading: How does the Joker “game changer” measure up against the Cornell and Technion joint venture? How about some objective analysis? You claim to be "logical" and "consistent"? Well, let's see how you assess the totality of the facts.

"Apartheid South Africa had big supporters in the US, too, but the whole racist thing came crashing down. You would expect any different now with your racist, apartheid state?"

Right, Israel is exactly like South Africa, only it is completely different. The whites in South Africa were dependent economically on the blacks. They were 12% of the population, not 70% like the Jews in Israel. In Israel, it is the other way around. The Jews do not need the Arabs at all economically while Arab welfare is completely dependent on Israeli goodwill.

But you know Woody, doomsayers are a dime a dozen. Just continue predicting a dismal future for Israel. Your ilk have been doing it for 60+ years and Israel keeps getting stronger on all fronts. The dogs bark but the caravan lumbers on.

"What’s more, if BDS is so ineffectual, why has Israel criminalized even speaking out for it?"

I am against this move personally, but again, how does it make BDS a success? Some countries have laws against desecrating national flags. Does that mean burning national flags is a successful method to get anything? You are just conflating political games with something being really effective. What did you think, that the right wing Israeli politicians were not going to use this to gain political points?

You have 2 or 3 people against BDS who occasionally spend time on this blog and you view that as a success? So because Richard Witty comments so much, BDS must be a success? You should really revisit how you redefine success.

And to the point, how does the Joker "game changer" measure up against the Cornell and Technion joint venture? How about some objective analysis?

So many falsehoods in one article.
Let's start from the obvious. Israeli Arabs are not excluded from the armed forces. They have a choice to serve if they want to and quite a few do.
Second, coalitions are formed based on having similar goals. Since the goal of the Arab parties is to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state, why would Zionist parties form a coalition with them? The Arab parties are not excluded because they are Arabs, they are excluded because of their ideology. When the communist party had mostly Jewish MK's it was excluded also. If an Arab party is formed that accepts Israel as a Jewish state, you can be sure it will find its way into a coalition.
Third, Israel chose proportional representation thus assuring that Arabs will be represented in the Knesset. It could have easily created districts and the Arabs would have been much less represented. Comparing Israel to Jim Crow South is ridiculous. Israel has done everything to maximize the effect of Arab votes, exactly the opposite of what done in the South with black votes.

The whole verdict is worth reading. Clearly the NGO that brought the case to court was wasting everybody's time by not focusing on one specific quarry, since the details of each case are important.

As for the interpretation of international law, the British, American and Canadians interpret article 55 as allowing the occupier to use mines as the verdict points out:

American interpretation:
402. Occupant's Disposition of Real Property of a State
Real property of the enemy State which is essentially of a nonmilitary nature, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged or destroyed unless such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations (see Art. 53, GC; par. 393 herein). The occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of such property. As administrator or usufructuary he should not exercise his rights in such a wasteful and negligent manner as seriously to impair its value. He may, however, lease or utilize public lands or buildings, sell the crops, cut and sell timber, and work the mines. The term of a lease or contract should not extend beyond the conclusion of the war. [ההדגשה הוספה - ד.ב.]

British:
"The occupying power is the administrator, user, and, in a sense, guardian of the property. It must not waste, neglect, or abusively exploit these assets so as to decrease their value. The occupying power has no right of disposal or sale but may let or use public land and buildings, sell crops, cut and sell timber, and work mines. It must not enter into commitments extending beyond the conclusion of the occupation and the cutting or mining must not exceed what is necessary or ususal"

U.K. Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, 303 (2004).

Enemy public immovable property may be administered and used but it may not be confiscated.
…
Real property belonging to the State which is essentially of a civil or non-military character, such as public buildings and offices, land, forests, parks, farms, and mines, may not be damaged unless their destruction is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of war. The occupant becomes the administrator of the property and is liable to use the property, but must not exercise its rights in such a wasteful or negligent way as will decrease its value. The occupant has no right of disposal or sale.
Public real property which is of an essentially military nature such as airfields and arsenals remain at the absolute disposal of the occupant.

Gantz is of course right. Hamas are stock piling weapons and clearly they plan to use them against Israel. Hamas and Israel are at war, therefore Israel and Gaza are at war. If you have a problem, go talk to your leaders. Why do you expect your enemies to be nice to you, especially when you keep shooting rockets at us? Furthermore, Hamas keep telling us that the IDF will suffer greatly if it enters Gaza, so there is nothing for you to worry about.

If you do not want the IDF in Gaza, it is quite simple. Get Hamas to renounce all violence and make sure no violence from Gaza is directed at Israel. If you want to exercise your "right" to violent "resistance" don't complain when you get hurt when Israel exercises its right to self defense.

Yes, what countless American presidents have been doing for years is "immoral" to you. That is why you are an extremist. There is nothing immoral about what these Jews are doing. They are helping a cause they believe in, not bribing a politician. This route is open to anyone who is willing to spend the time raising funds.

Again, all that you mention the Jewish establishment doing is perfectly legal and moral. Instead of whining, change the rules. Again, I remind everybody that the Jews did not make these rules. You are complaining that the Jews in the US are playing the "game" too well. You will just have to do better than them or change the rules.

"i can’t believe i never realized we had so many jewish ambassadors because they bought their way in so blatantly"

Being rewarded for a service is not the same as buying it. Anyone is free to spend time and money working to raise money for a candidate. Since Jews do it more, they get rewarded more. You really should reconsider what you wrote, it is borderline you know what.

"Because, as we all know, if 5 men out of 50 are bribing public officials, the blame lies with the 45 layabouts."

What the Jews are doing is perfectly legal. Not only that, they are honored for doing it by being made ambassadors to countries like Belgium and Spain. You are of course employing the "sour grapes" argument. Because you can't do it, it must be illegal or immoral. Again, change the rules or shut up but don't complain when perfectly honorable people play by them.

You want to take money out of the equation, go ahead. That should be easy for the 98% to do also. But what is weird is the whining about the current situation. The Jews did not make the rules, they are playing by them.

"What does this say about Jewish life? What does it say about American society?"

Those goyim you live with in the US should be encouraged to give more to politicians they support. It is really bad form that 2% of the population gives as much or more than the other 98%. The 98% need to get their act together.

Let's follow the money. And the person that gave the $350 million donation is...
Chuck Feeney, an Irish American (dual Irish and American citizenship).

And the conclusion from following the money is? It is that you are willing to make unfounded allegations with no evidence.

As to why Cornell partnered with the Technion, the NY Times writes:
"Each institution brought critical ingredients to winning the competition. Cornell needed Technion, which has played a role in Israel similar to the role Stanford has had in Silicon Valley, supplying talent and resources that help hundreds of companies set up shop near its Haifa campus. And Technion needed a local partner: “6,000 miles, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean — too far,” the school’s president, Peretz Lavie, noted at the news conference."link to nytimes.com

Soon you will be claiming that everybody is lying through their teeth and Feeney's grandmother was Jabotinsky's mistress.

Naturally you would think so as it is the epitome of anti-BDS. For every "Joker" that comes or not to Israel let's have an Israeli university take part in a multi-billion dollar project on prime US real estate. That should really show us Israelis.

"Singapore has you beat"
Maybe. They are 5 million we are 7 million. We have 4 universities in the top 400, they have 2, so per capita we have more. But there are also the statistics you site which reflect the fact that one of their universities is ranked 40. So it depends on how you want to measure.

How low can you go to make this distinction? All three individuals were less than 10 years old at Israel's founding. One was 6 months old. They all studied in Israeli schools and went to Israeli universities.

"All three of those recipients were honored for contributions made while studying/working in US Universities and/or Research facilities."

Not true. Some of their research was done abroad, not all of it. That is very common in academia. But even then, what is your point? It is quite common for certain labs in richer countries to have equipment that other labs do not have and they allow access to visiting scientists.

You are quite sad. The first ranked Turkish university Bilkent, is in the 201-225 category. Israel's THIRD ranked university is in that category. Both the Hebrew University (121) and Tel-Aviv University (166) are ranked higher even though Turkey has 10 times the population of Israel. And both Israel with 7 million people and Turkey with 70 million people have the same number of universities in the top 400.
And your allegations about intellectual property theft are of course a figment of your imagination. If Israel would do that, would so many American companies open research centers in Israel? Of course not.

Indeed, Switzerland is a bigger academic powerhouse than Israel. But that doesn't mean Israel isn't. You tend to forget that Israel is only 7 million people and for so few people to have so many universities in the top 500 is amazing. Go ahead, divide the US into 44 areas that have 7 million people each. How many of these areas have 4 universities in the top 500? The Boston area, NY area and the SF Bay area probably.

The article Phil linked from the Cornell newspaper explains why they are teaming up. Not because of money, but because of a history of collaboration:
"Cornell and Technion faculty have been cross-pollinating for years, especially in engineering. Joseph Halpern, professor and chair of computer science, has been collaborating for more than 20 years with Yoram Moses, his first Ph.D. student and now a professor of computer science at Technion. In 1984, the two wrote a seminal paper about how two people -- or two computer network nodes -- could communicate and know for sure that their messages had been received. The paper earned them the Gödel Prize and the Dijkstra Prize, two of the most prestigious honors in computer science, and it has been cited more than 1,000 times. They have written a book on the topic and continue to issue joint papers."

And it goes on to give other examples. You team up to work with people you like working with.

You are really hopeless. Of course the per capita statistics matter. All other things being equal, the more people there are in a country the larger the potential budget that the country can devote to universities. The more people there are in a country, the larger the pool of people the students can come from.

The rankings in Asia are given by exactly the site you are referencing.

And of course if Israel had a billion people the ranking would be completely different. It would have had many more universities ranked high. This is so obvious that I cannot believe I have to explain it to you.

Two Israeli universities are ranked 13 and 17 in Asia. Israel is being compared to China and Japan mostly, countries with hundreds of millions of people, while in Israel there are 7 million. I hope you realize that if the rankings were adjusted per capita, the Israeli universities would be on the top of the list.

Furthermore, Israel has 4 universities on the list. This is amazing for one of the smallest countries in Asia with only 7 million people. Turkey has 4 also but its population is 10 times that of Israel. China has 16 universities on the list but its population is 185 times that of Israel. Again, Israel is represented per capita 10 times as much as the Chinese. Singapore has 5 million people but only 2 universities on the list.

The only country on par with Israel is Japan. Israel only has a 13% advantage over Japan in top universities per capita. Israel is an academic powerhouse, the facts are plain to see.

If you are worried about this excellent news, you really have no idea how extensive the partnerships are between Israeli and American universities. Or between American and Israeli companies for that matter.

That you would want to stop the Technion from participating shows the reality of how you view BDS. It is really an all out attack on Israeli institutions, even ones like the Technion were many Arab Israelis study.

Of course it is ok. A company can decide on its hiring policies. And they can be stupid or racist or whatever. In the end, the company suffers because it does not recruit the best talent and may generate ill will from its customers. But if they are willing to pay the price, of course they are allowed to hire people they feel comfortable with.

So the Rabbi is not a universalist. Why would he be? Universalism is not natural and quite destructive. You cannot raise good children if you love your children like you love all the children in the world. Try telling them that you care about them the same amount as you care about the neighbors' kids.

PS I have noticed that many universalists are people without kids. They should try telling their mothers that they don't love them anymore than they love any other women. Let's see how that goes.

You probably made the same predictions about pull out from Gaza and were you right? The number of settlers that want confrontation with the IDF is very small. A couple of soldiers not wanting to listen to a woman sing is not a trend. A trend is the constant growth in the number of female pilots and fighters in the IDF and the commitment by Barak and Bibi to continue this trend.

Which powerful rabbis paid by the government and/or IDF encourage soldiers not to obey orders? I don't recall any, but there may have been one. Most settler rabbis are not extreme and do not call for a confrontation. Your view is just distorted because of course the settler rabbis rallying against the attack on the IDF are never mentioned here. This blog is a tabloid, so do not expect to get the complete picture.

And have you thought for a second why exactly are these idiots attacking the IDF? The truth is that the IDF is protecting Palestinians and taking care of some illegal settlements and is limiting what the settlers can do. That is why they don't like the IDF.

According to your beliefs, it is clear that the US cannot handle its neocons. Therefore, international intervention is required to make sure the US does not attack another country. Obviously this is ridiculous. Just like American citizens will have to handle any ideological group in the US, Israel will have to handle the extreme settlers and it will. Most Israelis (like Americans) are apathetic about this currently because it rarely touches their daily lives. They have other things to worry about. But there has been a strong reaction to the attack on the IDF and a backlash against the settlers.

As I see it, the worst case scenario is Israel unilaterally withdrawing from major parts of the West Bank leaving the extreme settlers and the Palestinians to duke it out.

When the Midwest is returned to the Plains Indians, let me know. Who are you to be talking about double standards? There is a huge difference between something that happened 60 years ago and something that is planned for today.

"Reasonable Israelis Who Want to Fight the Settlers CAN BEST DO SO BY COMBINING with Reasonable Palestinians Who Want to Fight the Extreme Islamists."

Sounds good except the "Reasonable Palestinians" want the right of return which means throwing Israelis out of their homes and the end of a Jewish state. When "Reasonable Palestinians" support the Clinton Parameters or the Geneva Initiative, count me in.

Why would I want to stop you Mooser? You are a great help to show the true face of anti-Zionists. You are against racism but constantly generalize about Israelis, blaming them of being drugged. You constantly claim you are against harming Israelis, but support most ideas to hurt us. You claim you are objective, but clearly you are a hypocrite who is not prepared to demand from his own country what you demand of Israel. When confronted by arguments like "Tough S–t, fella, that’s what I’ve decided to do" you whine that this is basically the "might makes right argument", and then you turn around and then make the exact argument yourself!

Not only that, you are proud of your inconsistency and irrationality. So please, do not let anyone stop you.

It is good to know that you yourself stand for reparations. But though it is your right to care about whatever you want, the fact is that your activism is focused on Israel and not at your own country's wrongdoing. Yes, you gave money to the Iraqi Christian cause but you have devoted much more money and time to the Palestinian cause. The Iraqi Christians you are directly responsible for as an American, yet you choose not to focus on them. It is your right of course, but it is also my right to question your priorities.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.

Sign up for Mondoweiss List

There are now two ways to get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox! Sign up for a daily digest of every story we publish or a weekly collection of highlights picked by Mondoweiss staff to stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in Israel/Palestine.